Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-1 May 2013

CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

This chapter identifies the initial range of route alternatives proposed for consideration for 

the Study. Route alternatives are the alternatives for the overall Project route and identify the 

termini and alignment for the service. The screening criteria and multi-step process used to 

evaluate these route alternatives, and the results of the alternatives analysis are also 

described. Subsequent to the route screening process, options for service (speeds, 

frequencies, and station stops) were identified, reviewed, and screened, and design options 

for route connectivity through the Des Moines, Iowa, area and the Council Bluffs, Iowa, and 

Omaha, Nebraska, area were considered. Although preliminary design would address 

specific infrastructure needs during the Tier 2 NEPA process, which may include the 

evaluation of design options, connectivity options must be initially addressed during 

preparation of the Tier 1 NEPA process. The No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative

(including its phased implementation) are described in detail in this chapter. Finally, a 

summary of potential impacts of the No-Build Alternative and Build Alternative is provided.

2.1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING

The identification of route alternatives and the screening process were documented in an

Alternatives Analysis Report (FRA and Iowa DOT, 2012). This report was made available 

for review as discussed in Sections 4.1.3 and 4.3.1. Section 2.1 provides a summary of the 

Alternatives Analysis Report, which was revised in response to comments and is included in 

Appendix A.

2.1.1 Initial Range of Route Alternatives

The potential route alternatives for the Corridor have been evaluated based on reviews of 

previous studies and also the ideas and concepts that were suggested by resource agencies 

and the public during the scoping process. 

The range of route alternatives includes the No-Build Alternative and existing or former 

freight-only or freight-passenger routes that may have been previously identified by the 

MWRRI and other studies. Entirely new construction on new right-of-way (ROW) (that is, 

a greenfield route) was considered but determined to be unreasonable because of the cost of 

new ROW and the challenge of timely acquisition of property. Additionally, grading entirely 

new ROW, rather than expanding as needed along existing ROW, would cause more impact 

on the natural and human environments1 than on-alignment route alternatives. 

 

1 The natural environment includes living and non-living things that are naturally on earth, whereas the 

human environment is the remaining portion of the environment that has been modified by man.
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2-2 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The No-Build Alternative, the five previously established passenger rail routes in the 

Corridor (Route Alternatives 1 through 5), and the combination of Route 4 and Route 5 

(Route Alternative 4-A) compose the initial range of route alternatives proposed for 

consideration for the Study. These route alternatives are shown in Figure 2-1, including the 

major cities through which they travel. The No-Build Alternative is included to provide a 

basis for comparison to the other route alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14; 64 FR 28545).

2.1.2 Screening Methodology

The methodology for screening route alternatives consisted of developing screening criteria 

and performing the screening process. The screening process included two steps: an initial 

coarse-level screening to identify whether any route alternative would be hindered by major 

challenges (and would thus be eliminated from further evaluation) and a subsequent finelevel screening to evaluate each route alternative in greater quantitative and qualitative detail. 

This two-step screening process was intended to allow the Tier 1 EIS to focus on only those 

route alternatives that would meet the purpose and need for the service and that are 

reasonable and feasible. 

2.1.3 Screening Criteria

The screening process for evaluating and eventually selecting reasonable and feasible route 

alternatives to carry forward for detailed consideration in the Tier 1 EIS relied on four broad 

screening criteria that were used for coarse- and fine-level screening. These four criteria are 

noted below, with Table 2-1 identifying and describing subcriteria for coarse-level screening, 

and Table 2-2 identifying and describing subcriteria for fine-level screening:

• Meeting the purpose and need for passenger rail service between Chicago and 

Omaha (this is a critical criterion under NEPA because those alternatives that 

don’t meet the underlying purpose and need for a project are eliminated from 

further consideration)

• Technical feasibility (this criterion addresses physical and operational 

considerations for a project)

• Economic feasibility (this criterion applies to economic considerations of 

anticipated revenue and costs)

• Environmental concerns (this criterion considers whether there would be 

substantial concerns with respect to impacts on the natural and human 

environment)

These screening criteria were used to compare the merits and drawbacks of each route 

alternative during both levels of the two-step screening process. Appendix A includes 

additional description of the criteria and the screening process for identification and review 

of route alternatives.
§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦55

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦90

I o w a I o w a

I l l i n o i s I l l i n o i s

K a n s a s K a n s a s

M i n n e s o t a M i n n e s o t a

M i s s o u r i M i s s o u r i

W i s c o n s i n W i s c o n s i n

Nebraska Nebraska

Route Alternative 3 Route Alternative 5/4-A

Route Alternative 2

Route Alternative 4/4-A

Route Alternative 5

Route Alternative 1

Council Council

Bluffs Bluffs

Osceola Osceola

Slater Slater

Ames Ames

Fort Dodge Fort Dodge

Cedar Rapids Cedar Rapids

Dubuque Dubuque

Marion Marion

Waterloo Waterloo

Burlington Burlington

Des Moines Des Moines

Iowa City Iowa City

Galesburg Galesburg

Moline Moline

Savanna Savanna

Rockford Rockford

Chicago Chicago

Elgin Elgin

Joliet Joliet

Naperville Naperville

Omaha Omaha

DeKalb DeKalb

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

DATE

FIGURE

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Route Alternatives

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013

2-1

0 20 40

I

Miles

Route 1

Route 2

Route 3

Route 4

Route 5

Route Hybrid
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2-4 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

2.1.4 Screening Process

A two-step screening process—coarse-level screening and fine-level screening—was used to 

evaluate proposed route alternatives using the four screening criteria. The purpose of the 

two-step screening process was to eliminate route alternatives burdened by major challenges. 

The coarse-level screening was applied to the initial range of route alternatives, unreasonable 

alternatives were eliminated from further consideration, fine-level screening was applied to 

the remaining alternatives, and the one or more alternatives that passed through the fine-level 

screening process were carried forward for detailed evaluation under the Tier 1 NEPA

process.

2.1.4.1 Coarse-Level Screening of Route Alternatives

Coarse-level screening is a high-level screening to determine which route alternatives meet 

the purpose and need, are technically and economically feasible, and are environmentally 

reasonable. Route alternatives that met all of these criteria were carried forward to fine-level 

screening. Route alternatives that did not meet all of these criteria were eliminated from 

further consideration. The route alternatives that did meet purpose and need were evaluated 

based on technical, economic, and environmental criteria. These criteria and their factors for 

evaluation are presented in Table 2-1; the Purpose and Need criterion and the Environmental 

Concerns criterion each have subcriteria defined for evaluation (see Appendix A for more 

comprehensive information on the screening process). Information gained during the scoping 

process was used to help compare and screen route alternatives.

A 500-foot wide buffer was applied to each of the route alternatives analyzed in the coarselevel screening. This buffer provided a conservative limit for screening the route alternatives. 

Table 2-1. Coarse-Level Screening Criteria

Criteria Factors

Purpose and Need: 

Travel Demand

Other than the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas, what is the 

population served by the route alternative? 

Purpose and Need: 

Competitive and 

Attractive Travel 

Modes

Would the route alternative provide a time-competitive route compared to other route 

alternatives?

Technical 

Feasibility

Would the route alternative involve substantially more technical hurdles than other 

route alternatives? Factors considered include:

• Major construction efforts, such as major earthwork and major new bridges

• Potential for freight train traffic conflicts and scope of engineering solutions 

for such conflicts

Economic

Feasibility

Would the route alternative have costs far in excess of its anticipated benefits? Would 

the route alternative be substantially more expensive than other route alternatives?

Environmental 

Concerns: Major 

Challenges

Based on qualitative analysis, does the route alternative have major environmental 

(natural and human environment) challenges compared to other considered route 

alternatives?

Environmental 

Concerns: Sensitive 

Areas

Based on qualitative analysis, would the route alternative traverse substantially more 

environmentally sensitive areas (such as wetlands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, 

cultural resources, and park and recreation lands) than other route alternatives?

Environmental 

Concerns: Rightof-Way

Would the route alternative require substantially more ROW acquisition than other 

route alternatives? 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-5 May 2013

2.1.4.2 Fine-Level Screening of Route Alternatives

Fine-level screening was conducted to determine which remaining route alternatives would

be carried forward for detailed evaluation in this Tier 1 EIS. During fine-level screening, 

route alternatives carried forward from the coarse-level screening were further screened for 

their ability to offer the highest potential ridership; the least potential construction, operation, 

and maintenance cost; and the least potential impact on the natural and human environment.

In order to estimate potential impacts, a preliminary impact area was identified for each route 

alternative. Existing ROW was assumed to be 100 feet wide throughout each route 

alternative. A buffer ranging from 25 to 50 feet wide was then applied where necessary to 

accommodate additional track needs, to promote efficient track maintenance, and to mitigate 

any operating disruptions generated by passenger trains. Therefore, the buffer area applied is 

specific to each route alternative. The preliminary impact area analyzed for each route 

alternative in the fine-level screening included the estimated 100-foot-wide ROW and the 

25- to 50-foot-wide buffer area for additional track.

The criteria and their factors evaluated during fine-level screening are listed in Table 2-2. 

Purpose and Need, Technical Feasibility, and Environmental Concerns each have subcriteria 

defined for evaluation. The environmental criteria were selected from those resources that 

were readily quantifiable, and often include constraints on project development. Some of the 

resources selected for screening would also require permits or approvals. Consequently, 

although not every environmental resource included in this NEPA document was considered 

for initial screening of alternatives, the resources selected for screening were known to be 

key constraints. 
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2-6 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Table 2-2. Fine-Level Screening Criteria

Criteria Factors

Purpose and Need: 

Travel Demand

Does a preliminary travel demand analysis indicate that the route alternative would 

attract a substantially greater or lesser number of riders compared to other route 

alternatives? Would the route alternative attract sufficient ridership to be an 

economically feasible alternative?

Purpose and Need: 

Competitive and 

Attractive Travel 

Modes

Based on information from coarse-level screening, determine if running times can be 

further refined for each route alternative. Would the route alternative provide a timecompetitive route compared to other route alternatives?

Technical Feasibility: 

Passenger and Freight 

Capacity

Determine general infrastructure improvements that would be required to deliver 

desired passenger train speeds and schedules. Determine general infrastructure 

improvements required to maintain existing and future freight train services while 

enabling prioritized passenger-train operation.

Technical/Economic

Feasibility: 

Alignment

Would the route alternative involve a more challenging alignment or grading 

problems, including flyovers, in order to meet speed and capacity requirements? 

Technical/Economic

Feasibility: Structures

Establish conceptual costs for structures for each route alternative for purposes of 

comparison.

Technical/Economic

Feasibility: Grade 

Crossings

Determine the number of new and expanded grade crossings and grade separations 

for each route alternative for purposes of comparison.

Economic Feasibility: Determine high-level project cost for route alternative comparison utilizing 

subcomponents that address alignment, structures, grade crossings, etc. Determine 

operating and maintenance costs for each route alternative as a basis for comparison.

Environmental 

Concerns: 

Environmental 

Impacts

Upon initial evaluation of the route alternative and quantification of conceptual 

environmental effects, would the route alternative have the potential to impact 

substantially more environmentally sensitive areas in the following categories 

compared with other route alternatives?

• Streams

• Floodplains

• Wetlands

• Farmland

• Threatened and endangered species

• Cultural resources

• Potential Section 4(f)/6(f) protected properties

• Environmental justice

• Noise and vibration

• Hazardous materials

Environmental 

Concerns: Right-ofWay

Determine conceptual ROW acquisition for each route alternative for purposes of 

comparison (refined from coarse-level screening). Would the route alternative 

require acquisition and demolition/disruption of substantially more structures, 

developments, agricultural resources, or features of the existing built environment 

(including homes, businesses, farms, and historic properties listed on the NRHP)

than other route alternatives?
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-7 May 2013

2.1.4.3 Results of Route Alternative Screening Process

The coarse- and fine-level screening of route alternatives is documented in detail in the Final 

Alternatives Analysis Report (FRA and Iowa DOT, 2012), included in Appendix A. A draft 

version of that report was available for public review during preparation of the Tier 1 Draft 

EIS. Comments on the Draft Alternatives Analysis Report were considered in development 

of the final version of that report. The coarse-level screening process eliminated Route 

Alternative 3 from further consideration because it would have the highest cost; require a 

substantial permitting effort; result in unacceptably high impacts on landowners because of 

the ROW needs; and cause extensive impacts on communities, infrastructure, wetlands, 

streams, and wildlife habitat. The fine-level screening process eliminated Route Alternatives 

1, 2, 4, and 5 from further consideration because they were neither reasonable nor feasible 

alternatives. Therefore, Route Alternative 4-A is the only route alternative carried forward 

for further analysis in the Tier 1 EIS. Below is a summary from the Alternatives Analysis 

Report providing the rationale for eliminating or carrying forward the aforementioned route 

alternatives. As discussed in the Alternatives Analysis Report, the base case represents the 

lowest cost or shortest travel time and varies depending on the criterion. Route Alternative 4 

had the lowest estimated cost and was considered to be the base case for the preliminary cost 

estimate, and Route Alternative 2 had the shortest travel time and was the base case for the 

comparison of travel times.

Route Alternative 1

Route Alternative 1 did not meet the purpose and need for the Project because it would not 

attract the necessary ridership from Iowa communities and the Omaha/Council Bluffs 

metropolitan area to generate adequate revenue. In addition, because this route alternative is 

longest and slowest of the route alternatives, it would not offer a competitive travel time, and

because of its length, Route Alternative 1 would have excessive operations and maintenance 

costs. Route Alternative 1 also did not meet the technical/economic criteria because it would 

require a major new structure over the Mississippi River and its costs were excessive

compared to the base case of preliminary cost estimates for improvement of Route 

Alternative 4, which had the least expensive costs. Route Alternative 1 was determined to be 

neither reasonable nor feasible.

Route Alternative 2

Despite the fact that it has the shortest travel time, Route Alternative 2 did not meet the 

purpose and need for the Project because it would not attract adequate ridership or generate 

the necessary revenue to make the service viable. Route Alternative 2 also did not meet the 

technical/economic criteria; it would require extensive new ROW and a major new structure 

over the Mississippi River. Route Alternative 2 did not meet the economic criterion because 

of the excessive capital cost requirements. Route Alternative 2 would cost approximately 

$1 billion more than the base case, without providing any additional service or ridership 

benefits. Route Alternative 2 was determined to be neither reasonable nor feasible.
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2-8 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Route Alternative 3

Of the six route alternatives, the greatest challenges are presented by Route Alternative 3. 

Not only would Route Alternative 3 have the highest cost, but also the permitting effort 

would be substantial. Establishing approximately 225 miles of new railroad ROW would 

create unacceptably high impacts on landowners, and the resulting permitting process would 

be extremely long. An extended permitting process could void the early baseline data prior to 

the permit being issued, thus requiring a second round of baseline data gathering and 

potentially requiring a re-evaluation of the findings of the Tier 1 EIS. Constructing 

essentially greenfield railroad for Route Alternative 3 would have significant impacts on 

communities, infrastructure, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat. Former bridges across 

major rivers would need to be reconstructed at high costs and environmental impacts. In 

addition to the high cost of ROW acquisition and bridge reconstruction, track and 

infrastructure would also need to be reestablished at an appreciable cost. As a result of the 

extremely high environmental and economic hurdles to re-establishing this abandoned rail 

corridor and anticipated local opposition and controversy, Route Alternative 3 was deemed 

unreasonable and was eliminated from further study during the coarse-level screening 

process.

Route Alternative 4

Route Alternative 4 does not meet the purpose and need for the project because the Chicago 

terminus of Route Alternative 4 is at La Salle Street Station instead of Chicago Union Station

and provides substantially less connectivity at Chicago. It would not provide for the 

connection to the MWRRI high-speed network, which is connected through the Chicago hub 

at Chicago Union Station. This connection would be costly, have impacts on urban areas that 

the connection would be constructed through, and is not practical. 

Route Alternative 4 was the least costly (not accounting for a connection from La Salle Street 

Station to Chicago Union Station) and was considered to represent the base case for 

comparison of preliminary costs of the other route alternatives; it would attract adequate 

ridership and would generate adequate revenue. However, Route Alternative 4 currently does 

not have a direct connection to Chicago Union Station and does not have adequate capacity 

for the proposed Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha passenger trains to travel on the 

commuter train routes that they would share in the Chicago urban area. Route Alternative 4

would require extensive upgrades of the track structure between Wyanet and Joliet. In 

addition, Route Alternative 4 would require extensive addition of capacity to mitigate freight 

traffic between Wyanet and Joliet, and freight and commuter traffic between Joliet and 

Chicago Union Station.

East of Wyanet, Illinois, Route Alternative 4 comprises the former Chicago, Rock Island & 

Pacific Railroad (CRI&P), which served La Salle Street Station in Chicago. Studies for the 

Chicago to St. Louis high-speed passenger rail corridor have identified a potential connection 

alignment between La Salle Street Station and Chicago Union Station. This potential 

connection alignment would connect the former CRI&P track to La Salle Street Station (now 

owned by Metra and used for commuter passenger trains) and parallel tracks approximately 

1 mile to the west (now owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern 

Railway [NS]) that provide a direct connection to Chicago Union Station. This connection 

alignment would use an existing NS line that departs from the former CRI&P (now Metra)
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-9 May 2013

line and passes underneath the UP and NS lines. A new connection track would need to be 

constructed in the northeast quadrant of this underpass so Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

passenger trains could move directly between Chicago Union Station and the former CRI&P 

(now Metra) route without a reverse movement west of the underpass. This connection track 

would be constructed through an urban neighborhood and would require the acquisition and 

demolition of businesses on at least one city block. It would also require grade-separation 

structures that would result in additional property acquisition in this neighborhood. Capacity 

of the former CRI&P (now Metra) line is limited, and placement of the Chicago to Council 

Bluffs-Omaha passenger trains on this line would likely require significant capacity 

improvements, such as an additional main track. The majority of the ROW of the former 

CRI&P (now Metra) line is fully occupied by the existing main tracks. Additional ROW

would be needed for an additional main track and would require extensive acquisitions of 

adjacent homes and businesses. Based on the lack of an existing connection from La Salle 

Street Station to Chicago Union Station and the lack of capacity on the former CRI&P (now 

Metra) line, as well as the associated cost and impacts of constructing a connection and 

providing additional capacity, Route Alternative 4 was determined to be neither reasonable 

nor feasible.

Following publication of the Tier 1 Draft EIS for the Project, the Record of Decision for the 

Tier 1 Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program (FRA, December 2012) was 

signed by FRA. That Record of Decision indicated that a connection is planned from Metra’s 

Rock Island District track to Chicago Union Station along Route Alternative 4. However, 

several processes need to occur before the project plans would be implemented and the 

service would be operational. An initial subsequent process would be development of an 

FRA-required Tier 2 site-specific NEPA document to evaluate the section of the program 

that includes the connection. The proposed connection would require land acquisition in an 

urban setting. In addition, the capacity and level of service of the proposed connection is 

unknown. Consequently, the potential exists that the connection might not be present, or may 

not have adequate capacity, which would affect planning and design for the Project. Because

the comparison of route alternatives for the Project was conducted based on the review of 

existing conditions, the lack of a current connection was a critical element in reviewing the 

practicality of this route alternative. 

Route Alternative 5

Route Alternative 5 did not meet the purpose and need for the Project because it would not 

attract adequate ridership or generate the necessary revenue to make the service viable. Route 

Alternative 5 also did not meet the technical/economic criteria; it would require extensive 

new ROW and a major new structure over the Mississippi River. Route Alternative 5 did not 

meet the economic criterion because of the excessive capital cost requirements. Route 

Alternative 5 would cost approximately $1.2 billion more than the base case, without 

providing any additional service or ridership benefits. Route Alternative 5 was determined to 

be neither reasonable nor feasible.
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2-10 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Route Alternative 4-A

Route Alternative 4-A was identified as the Build Alternative for the Project and has been 

carried forward for further analysis in the Tier 1 EIS. Table 2-3 (derived from Table 7-1 from 

the Final Alternatives Analysis Report, which is included in Appendix A and provides 

detailed information on the screening process) illustrates the comparison of the criteria from 

fine-level screening supporting the screening process. Route Alternative 4-A was carried 

forward for detailed evaluation because, when compared to the other route alternatives 

considered during fine-level screening, it:

• Meets Project purpose and need (purpose and need)

• Has relatively low construction complexity and relatively low construction costs

(technical and economic feasibility)

• Has grade-crossing complexity similar to all route alternatives (technical 

feasibility)

• Is the shortest route alternative (purpose and need)

• Has a competitive passenger-train travel time (purpose and need)

• Serves the largest population (purpose and need)

• Has the highest ridership and farebox revenue forecast (purpose and need, and 

economic feasibility)

• Has direct access to Chicago Union Station (technical and economic feasibility)

• Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues (environmental concerns)

Route Alternative 4-A was determined to be the only reasonable and feasible route 

alternative reviewed in the Alternatives Analysis Report.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-11 May 2013

Table 2-3. Route Alternative Comparison

Criteria

Relative Ranking of Route Alternative

Route Alternative 1 Route Alternative 2 Route Alternative 4 Route Alternative 5 Route Alternative 4-A No-Build Alternative

Purpose and Need: 

Travel Demand

774,000 total 

population served

523,940 total 

population served

1,034,000 total 

population served

167,000 total 

population served

1,034,000 total 

population served No additional service

Ridership

Forecast

505,000 to 

715,000

375,000 to 

550,000

640,000 to 

885,000

255,000 to 

370,000

680,000 to 

935,000 None

Revenue Forecast $15.2 to $22.2 

million

$14.7 to $22.0 

million

$22.9 to $32.2 

million

$11.2 to $16.6

million

$24.2 to $33.9

million None

Preliminary 

Running Timea

• Base at 79 mph + 

43 minutes

• Base at 90 mph + 

43 minutes

• Base at 110 mph + 

40 minutes

• Base at 79 mph

• Base at 90 mph

• Base at 110 mph

• Base at 79 mph + 

17 minutes

• Base at 90 mph + 

22 minutes

• Base at 110 mph + 

25 minutes

• Base at 79 mph + 

18 minutes

• Base at 90 mph + 

16 minutes

• Base at 110 mph + 

13 minutes

• Base at 79 mph + 

4 minutes

• Base at 90 mph + 

8 minutes

• Base at 110 mph + 

14 minutes

Not Applicable

Purpose and Need: 

Competitive and 

Attractive Travel 

Modes

• 516 miles long

• Excessive travel 

time 

• 479 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time 

• 490 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time

• Lack of connection 

to Chicago Union 

Station

• 496 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time 

• 474 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time 

No new travel mode

Technical 

Feasibility:

Passenger and 

Freight Capacity 

• New Mississippi 

River Bridge

• Freight congestion

Dubuque terminal

• Partial second main 

track

• New Mississippi 

River Bridge

• New third main 

track entire 

distance

• Freight congestion

Des Moines 

terminal

• Partial second main 

track

• New Mississippi 

River Bridge

• New third main 

track entire 

distance

• Freight congestion

Des Moines 

terminal

• Partial second and 

third main track

No change to existing 

capacity

Technical/ 

Economic

Feasibility:

Alignment 

• Heavy curvature on 

approaches to 

Mississippi River

valley

• Moderate curvature 

in Iowa

• Heavy earthwork 

requirements on 

approaches to 

Mississippi River

valley 

• Light curvature

• Heavy earthwork 

requirements to add 

third main track

• Moderate curvature 

along Illinois River

• Moderate curvature 

between Des 

Moines and 

Atlantic

• Moderate 

earthwork 

requirements

• Light curvature

• Heavy earthwork 

requirements to add 

third main track

• Moderate curvature 

between Des 

Moines and 

Atlantic

• Moderate 

earthwork 

requirements

• No change to 

existing alignments
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2-12 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Criteria

Relative Ranking of Route Alternative

Route Alternative 1 Route Alternative 2 Route Alternative 4 Route Alternative 5 Route Alternative 4-A No-Build Alternative

Technical/

Economic

Feasibility:

Structures 

• New or improved 

East Dubuque 

Tunnel

• New Mississippi 

River bridge

• New Mississippi 

and Des Moines 

(Kate Shelly) 

bridges

• Grade separation 

with UP at Des 

Moines

• New Mississippi 

River bridge

• Grade separation 

with UP at Des 

Moines

• No changes to 

structures

Technical/

Economic

Feasibility: Grade 

Crossings 

High number of grade 

crossings, but not 

technically 

complicated

Substantial 

challenges at each 

grade crossing

High number of grade 

crossings, but not 

technically 

complicated

Substantial 

challenges at each 

grade crossing

High number of grade 

crossings, but not 

technically 

complicated

No changes to grade 

crossings

Economic

Feasibilityb

Base cost + 

$550 million

Base cost + 

$1,005 million Base cost Base cost + $1,230.6 million

Base cost + 

$147.2 million Not applicable

Environmental 

Concerns: 

Environmental 

Impacts

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified 

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

Environmental 

Concerns: Rightof-Way

2,200 acres needed 

(600 urban/1,600 

rural)

3,200 acres needed 

(950 urban/2,250 

rural)

2,100 acres needed 

(800 urban/1,300 

rural)

3,000 acres needed 

(850 urban/2,150 

rural)

2,200 acres needed 

(800 urban/1,400 

rural)

None

Meets Purpose and 

Need No No No No Yes No

Carried Forward No No No No Yes Yesc

Notes: a Preliminary running time is shown as the base, or lowest, speed at each anticipated train speed (79, 90, and 110 mph) plus the length of time in minutes that 

each route alternative exceeds the base running time. Route Alternative 2 has the shortest running time, which is referred to as the base. Actual numbers for 

the base running time are not provided because they were developed using high-level analysis and were used only to show the relative time as compared to 

other alternatives. b Economic feasibility is shown as the base, or lowest, cost plus the dollar amount (in millions) that each route alternative exceeds the base cost. Route 

Alternative 4 had the lowest estimated cost, which is referred to as the base cost. Actual numbers for the base cost are not provided because they were 

developed using high-level analysis and were used only to show the relative cost as compared to other alternatives. c While the No-Build Alternative does not meet purpose and need, it is carried forward to provide a basis of comparison to any route alternative (40 CFR 

1502.14; 64 FR 28545).
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-13 May 2013

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

The No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative (Route Alternative 4-A) are carried 

forward for further analysis in this Tier 1 EIS and are described below.

2.2.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would consist of the current trackage and operations with the 

present level of maintenance and no appreciable change to current track configuration or 

operations. The No-Build Alternative would not involve construction and operation of 

intercity passenger rail service from Chicago to Omaha, but independently planned 

construction of passenger rail service from Chicago to Moline would still occur. This project 

is referred to as the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program and includes operation of 

two round-trips per day at speeds of up to 79 mph, a connection to join BNSF and Iowa 

Interstate Railroad (IAIS) track near Wyanet, Illinois, as well as improvements at Eola Yard

in Eola, Illinois. Construction for the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program is 

anticipated to commence in 2013 and the service to be operational by 2015. 

Other transportation projects in the vicinity of the proposed Chicago to Council BluffsOmaha Regional Passenger Rail System could occur independently, with or without the 

Project, and include the projects listed below (Section 3.26.2 provides more information on 

these projects, and Section 1.5 discusses some of the projects).

MWRRI Projects:

• Chicago to Detroit-Pontiac, Michigan

• Chicago to St. Louis, Missouri

• Chicago to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Twin Cities, Minnesota, to Duluth, 

Minnesota

Metra Projects:

• STAR Line SES 

• UP-NW Line 

• UP-W Line 

• BNSF Line Aurora to Oswego Extension 

Additional projects to facilitate passenger rail systems in Illinois and Iowa include:

• Illinois: Midwest Train Equipment Fleet 

• Illinois: Chicago Terminal Limits for the Midwest Regional Rail System 

• Illinois: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor 

• Illinois: Amtrak Illinois Zephyr Galesburg Congestion Relief Project

• Iowa: Ottumwa Subdivision Capitalized Maintenance 

• Iowa: Ottumwa Subdivision Crossover Improvements 
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2-14 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Major roadway projects:

• Illinois: Move Illinois

• Illinois: Congestion-Relief Program

• Illinois: Illiana Expressway

• Illinois: Elgin O’Hare West Bypass

• Iowa: Ottumwa Subdivision Capitalized Maintenance 

• Iowa and Nebraska: CBIS Improvements Project

Other intercity passenger rail services that currently operate within or adjacent to the Chicago

to Omaha Corridor, including Amtrak’s California Zephyr and Southwest Chief, and Illinois’

state-supported, Amtrak-operated Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg services, are assumed to 

continue to operate under the No-Build Alternative. The California Zephyr and Southwest 

Chief are categorized as long-distance trains, with schedules and accommodations oriented 

for passengers traveling long distances, such as between Chicago and California. 

Accordingly, these trains have schedules designed primarily to serve their target longdistance markets, and include both sleeper and full-service diner accommodations for 

passengers. As such, while they operate within or adjacent to the Chicago to Omaha 

Corridor, their operation is not specifically designed to meet the needs of travelers within that 

Corridor. The Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg are operated by Amtrak under contract to 

the State of Illinois and are supported by financial assistance provided through appropriations 

by the Illinois Legislature. They are categorized as regional trains with daytime schedules,

begin and end their trips between their endpoints within the same calendar day, and do not 

offer sleeper or full-service diner accommodations for passengers. While the design of the 

operation of these services is similar to what is contemplated for the Chicago to Omaha 

Corridor, they generally service different geographic markets.

Similarly, under the No-Build Alternative, other forms of long-distance and regional 

transportation, such as commercial airline and bus services, are assumed to continue 

operating within the Corridor in the same manner as current operations.

The No-Build Alternative would not meet the project purpose and need because intercity 

passenger rail service would not be reestablished in Iowa City or Des Moines, there would 

not be an attractive alternative to highway or airline travel; and congestion of these modes of 

transportation in the Corridor would not be reduced. As population increases, demand for 

regional and long-distance travel services is projected to increase, and the number of flights, 

bus trips, and personal vehicle trips would increase, causing increased congestion.

The No-Build Alternative was retained for detailed analysis to allow equal comparison to the 

Build Alternative carried forward and to help decision makers and the public understand the 

consequences of taking no action. NEPA requires consideration of no action to serve as a 

baseline for comparison with the proposed action.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-15 May 2013

2.2.3 Build Alternative

The Build Alternative consists of the improvements associated with Route Alternative 4-A to 

accommodate up to seven round-trip passenger trains per day at maximum speeds of up to 

110 mph. Current maximum train speeds vary along the Corridor due to existing operations, 

traffic volumes, and infrastructure condition. The Build Alternative, shown in Figure 2-2, is

approximately 475 miles long and consists of tracks currently owned and operated by four 

rail carriers between Chicago and Omaha. Figure 2-2 also shows the route of the California 

Zephyr; this service is anticipated to continue regardless of whether the Chicago to Council 

Bluffs-Omaha Project is constructed. These four rail carriers and the approximate distances 

of trackage2 on which the Build Alternative would operate are as follows:

• Amtrak – 1.6 miles from Chicago Union Station to 21st Street in Chicago

• BNSF – 110.5 miles from 21st Street in Chicago to a proposed connection with 

IAIS near Wyanet, Illinois

• IAIS – 45.9 miles from a proposed connection with BNSF near Wyanet, Illinois,

to its connection with BNSF near Silvis, Illinois

• BNSF – 5.1 miles from its connection with IAIS near Silvis, Illinois, to its 

connection with IAIS near Rock Island, Illinois

• IAIS – 172.7 miles from its connection with BNSF near Rock Island, Illinois, to 

its connection with UP near Short Line Yard, East Des Moines, Iowa (this section 

includes the Government Bridge, a multiple-span movable bridge across the 

Mississippi River owned and maintained by the U.S. Army, Rock Island Arsenal, 

and administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE])

• UP – 12 miles from its connection with IAIS near Short Line Yard, East Des 

Moines, Iowa, to its connection with IAIS near West Des Moines, Iowa

• IAIS – 125 miles from its connection with UP near West Des Moines, Iowa, to its 

connection with UP at Pool Yard, Council Bluffs, Iowa

• UP – 2.5 miles from its connection with IAIS at Pool Yard, Council Bluffs, Iowa, 

to its connection with BNSF at Tower A, Omaha, Nebraska

• BNSF – 0.5 mile from its connection with UP at Tower A, Omaha, Nebraska, to 

the vicinity of the Omaha Amtrak station

 

2 The distances of trackage are only approximate because there have been changes in mileposts over the 

150 years that the railroads have been operating, and in several locations, the length depends on which

main track the mileage is estimated along. 
Des Moines River

Lake 

Michigan

Omaha

Naperville

Moline

Iowa

Des City

Moines

Council

Bluffs

Chicago

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦72

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦57

I A

I L

I N

M N

N E

W I 

Wisconsin River

St. Clair River

Illinois River

Missouri River

Mississippi R iver

DATE

FIGURE

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Build Alternative

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013

2-2

0 20 40

I

Miles

Amtrak's California 

Zephyr Route

Build Alternative
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-17 May 2013

Subsequent to the identification of Route Alternative 4-A as the Build Alternative, further 

evaluations were conducted by Iowa DOT regarding the infrastructure needed to support 

operations on the Project. The aforementioned list of existing track does not account for new 

track anticipated to be needed in a few locations, such as upgrading the connection of BNSF

and IAIS tracks at Wyanet, and connections in Des Moines, and through Council Bluffs to 

Omaha. Additionally, the need for stations and maintenance facilities to support the 

passenger rail operations was identified. The planned increase in train speeds involved a 

preliminary review of existing at-grade rail crossings. A process to review service options 

including number of round-trips per day, train speeds, and types and numbers of station stops 

was conducted. Due to predicted funding limitations, implementation phases for the Project 

were studied. In addition, current and projected freight and passenger operations were 

reviewed. The following subsections summarize the evaluations performed to help define the 

Build Alternative. 

2.2.3.1 Infrastructure

For the Build Alternative to function efficiently, improvements would be required. A 

preliminary analysis of improvements was conducted in support of the Tier 1 Draft EIS, and 

was refined in this Tier 1 Final EIS after additional modeling and operational analyses were

performed. This resulted in a list of required improvements to meet minimum infrastructure 

needs; however, specific locations for improvements are currently unknown. A detailed study 

of the specific design for each identified improvement would not be conducted until Tier 2 

analysis of the Project. The types of improvements needed include infrastructure upgrades, 

at-grade roadway crossings, stations, and layover and maintenance facilities. Consequently, 

although one Build Alternative is being evaluated in this Tier 1 Final EIS, there are 

alternatives for infrastructure improvements being evaluated at the Tier 1 level.

The Build Alternative would include construction of new main track, sidings, and connection 

tracks; upgrades to existing track to enable faster passenger train speeds and the desired 

passenger train service reliability; installation of wayside signaling systems3 to enable 

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC)4 as the method of operation throughout the route; and 

installation of a Positive Train Control (PTC)5 system where not already implemented. 

Throughout the Corridor, connections to the existing main track would be required for

meet/pass events, access to industries, and capacity for maintenance-of-way activities. The 

additional main track constructed may be discontinuous through urban areas and across 

bridges. Revisions of and improvements to the signaling systems would be implemented.

 

3 A wayside signaling system is a system adjacent to the railroad tracks that helps provide for control of train 

movements with visual indications through lights, mast arms, or electronic signals. 4 CTC is a method of train traffic control in which a dispatcher remotely controls signals and switches. 

Trains must observe the controlled signals (Bryan, May 1, 2006). 

5 PTC is defined by FRA as “communication-based/processor-based train control technology that provides a 

system capable of reliably and functionally preventing train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, 

incursions into established work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a main line switch in the 

improper position” (FRA, June 7, 2012). 
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2-18 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The preliminary analysis of improvement needs was conducted along the Corridor to 

establish a boundary of the area potentially disturbed during construction of the Project. The 

area potentially needed to construct the improvements constitutes the Potential Impact Area, 

and is further described in the introduction to Chapter 3. Based on preliminary modeling of 

capacity and demand completed for this Tier 1 Final EIS, expansion of the Potential Impact 

Area was not required. There is the potential that based on Tier 2 analysis, improvements 

may be required outside the Tier 1 Potential Impact Area. If the Tier 1 Potential Impact Area 

is expanded, areas added to the Potential Impact Area would be studied in detail in the Tier 2 

NEPA documents. In addition, detailed capacity modeling will be conducted during Tier 2 

analysis to identify more specific requirements for revisions of and improvements to the 

wayside signal system, crossovers and interlocking plants, and connection tracks in order to 

provide adequate capacity for the proposed passenger trains. In the event that these

improvements would occur outside the Tier 1 Potential Impact Area, studies during Tier 2 

would characterize these areas and document the changes relative to preliminary boundaries 

identified during Tier 1. 

In consideration of existing infrastructure, train traffic, roadways, urban land uses, and 

abandoned rail corridors, a few alignment options within the Corridor were identified. There 

are multiple alignment options through East Des Moines, Iowa, and across the Missouri 

River between Council Bluffs, Iowa and Omaha, Nebraska, as well as multiple station

location options in Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Omaha. Consequently, the Potential 

Impact Area includes all alignments and locations currently under consideration. Figure 2-3 

illustrates potential options for connecting the Corridor through Des Moines, and Figure 2-4 

shows potential options for crossing of the Missouri River. The Tier 2 analysis will confirm 

selection of the alignment locations and station locations.

2.2.3.2 Station Stops

Station stops considered include all of the stops identified in the Final Alternatives Analysis 

Report (see Appendix A) as well as additional stops. The proposed passenger rail service

would continue to use existing Amtrak long-distance or Illinois-state-sponsored service 

stations at Chicago Union Station, La Grange Road, Naperville, Plano, Mendota, and 

Princeton, Illinois; and potentially at Omaha, Nebraska. New stations or reuse and 

modification of existing or past stations are proposed at Geneseo and Moline, Illinois; Iowa 

City, Grinnell, Des Moines, Atlantic, and Council Bluffs, Iowa; and potentially Omaha, 

Nebraska. Proposed station locations for Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Omaha are shown 

in Figure 2-5 along with alternative station locations. The proposed location in Des Moines is 

at or near the former Rock Island railroad station between 4th and 5th Streets. In Council 

Bluffs, the proposed location is adjacent to the Council Bluffs Energy Center (CBEC)

Railway, with alternate locations off the BNSF Council Bluffs Subdivision, at or near the 

former Rock Island/Milwaukee Road Council Bluffs Union Station, off Valley View Drive, 

and in the southeast quadrant of the I-80 and U.S. Highway 6 interchange. The proposed 

location in Omaha is at the former Burlington Route station, with alternate locations in north 

downtown, by the CenturyLink Center, the former Union Station, and the current Amtrak 

station. Figure 2-6 shows proposed locations for stations in Grinnell (in the southeast 

quadrant of the intersection of IAIS and UP rail lines), at or near the former Rock Island 

station, and Atlantic (at or adjacent to a former Rock Island railroad station).
UV163

§ ̈¦I 235

UV163

£¤69

SE 30TH ST

MAURY ST

DEAN AVE

E 18TH ST

SCOTT AVE

SE DIAGONAL

E MARKET ST

E COURT AVE

Design Option 3

Design Option 2a

Design Option 2

Design Option 1

Copyright: ©2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ

DATE

FIGURE

Des Moines Design Options

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013

2-3

I

0 1,000 2,000

Feet
C o u n c i l B l u f f s C o u n c i l B l u f f s

£¤6

£¤6

Missouri River 

Crossing Location 2

Existing CN Single-Track Swing

 Span Bridge (Former Illinois 

Central - Not Operational)

Missouri River 

Crossing Location 1

Existing UP 

Double-Track Bridge

O m a h a O m a h a

§ ̈¦480

§ ̈¦I 29

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦I 80

UV192

UV165

UV192

UV0192

UV192

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦480

Design Option 2

Design Option 1

Copyright: ©2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ

DATE

FIGURE

Missouri River Crossing Design Options

Council Bluffs, IA and Omaha, NE

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013

2-4

I

0 1,500 3,000

Feet
GGG

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

£¤6

£¤75

£¤275

§ ̈¦480

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦29

G

£¤69

§ ̈¦235

Proposed Station and Maintenance Locations

Des Moines and Council Bluffs/Omaha

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

DATE

FIGURE

May 2013

2-5

0 3,000 6,000

Feet

0 4,000 8,000

Feet

I

G Proposed

Station 

Location

G

Alternative

Station 

Location

Proposed

Maintenance

Location

Alternatives

Interstate

US HWY

State HWY
Atlantic

UV83 UV173

UV £¤6 83

G

£¤71

£¤6

n

Grinnell

UV146

G

£¤6

Grinnell

College

Proposed Station Locations

Grinnell and Atlantic

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

DATE

FIGURE

May 2013

2-6

0 3,000 6,000

I

Feet

G Proposed 

Station 

Location

Alternatives

Interstate

US HWY

State HWY

Atlantic

Grinnell

Iowa

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦29 § ̈¦380

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦80
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-23 May 2013

Specific sites for passenger rail stations in Iowa City, Grinnell, Des Moines, Atlantic, and 

Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, have not yet been determined. However, since 

publication of the Tier 1 Draft EIS, Iowa DOT has continued to coordinate with different 

municipalities regarding their preferences for station locations. These preferences are being 

evaluated, but final decisions have not been made; therefore, no options identified in this 

Tier 1 EIS have been eliminated. Final site selection, construction, and operation of these

passenger rail stations will be evaluated in subsequent Tier 2 NEPA documents.

2.2.3.3 Maintenance Facilities

An overnight train layover and light maintenance facility would be required in the 

Des Moines and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas. Specific sites for these facilities

have not yet been determined; however, Figure 2-5 shows proposed areas that could host 

maintenance facilities in the Des Moines and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas. 

Interim layover and light maintenance facilities may be required at Moline or Iowa City

depending on implementation strategies. The development of Moline and Iowa City layover 

and maintenance facilities could occur as part of implementation of other passenger rail 

projects. Tentative locations for these facilities could be near IAIS Rock Island Yard in 

Moline and in Coralville, Iowa, southwest of the I-80 and Coral Ridge Avenue interchange. 

These sites, as well as any interim-phase train layover and light maintenance facilities 

required, will be evaluated in subsequent Tier 2 NEPA documents.

In addition to light maintenance, heavy maintenance for locomotives and train sets would be 

required. The aforementioned Des Moines and Omaha/Council Bluff locations for light 

maintenance could potentially be selected to also support heavy maintenance activities. 

The method by which such maintenance would be performed has not yet been determined. 

Potential methods include construction of a dedicated maintenance facility for the Project, 

contracting with existing Amtrak or Metra heavy maintenance facilities in Chicago, or 

contracting with a third-party contractor using an existing railroad heavy maintenance facility 

at some other location. The heavy maintenance facility for the Project if constructed as part 

of the Project will be evaluated through Tier 2 analysis.

2.2.3.4 At-Grade Crossings

There are approximately 850 at-grade roadway crossings on the Build Alternative. Grade 

crossing surfaces and warning systems would need to be improved to meet safety standards 

for passenger trains traveling at 110 mph. All crossings would undergo diagnostic studies 

during Tier 2 analysis for identification of improvement needs in concert with Illinois DOT, 

the Illinois Commerce Commission, and the host railroad in Illinois; Iowa DOT and the host 

railroad in Iowa; and the Nebraska Department of Roads and the host railroad in Nebraska. 

The crossing analysis would evaluate all crossings with potential for closure under the Build 

Alternative. Warning devices would be installed based on speed-dependent criteria. Existing 

warning devices would be reused where practical if they conform to the speed-dependent 

criteria.
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2-24 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

2.2.3.6 Service Options

An iterative process was conducted for determining the optimum number of round-trips per 

day, train speeds, and types and numbers of station stops for the Build Alternative. The 

process considered ridership and revenue, as well as general operation and maintenance 

costs, as maximum frequency and speed increased and as station stops were added. Service 

options considered between two and seven round-trips per day between Chicago and Omaha, 

and also between Chicago and Des Moines; maximum speeds of between 79 and 110 mph;

and two types of station stop service, standard-stop or selected-stop, as defined below. 

Station stops intersected by Route Alternative 4-A were considered. Station stops are 

typically located at the largest intermediate cities, or as close as possible to the largest 

intermediate cities, in order to attract and serve the largest possible ridership. In addition, 

potential station stops in suburban areas and smaller urban areas were evaluated to determine 

whether such stops would increase overall ridership and revenue despite longer overall 

Corridor travel times, to determine potential ridership gained from each urban area, and to 

determine the anticipated effect on Corridor-wide ridership and travel time. Standard-stop 

service would involve a train stopping at all identified station stops, and selected-stop service 

would involve a train stopping at only some identified station stops.

The iterative process was bounded by considering the feasibility and practicality of low and 

high limits of trains, trains speeds, and types and numbers of station stops. Providing more 

than seven round-trips per day would not generate substantial additional ridership, so the 

maximum service level evaluated was seven round-trips per day. The maximum speed range 

was identified based on estimated costs of implementing the service. Speeds above a 

maximum of 125 mph would require closure or costly grade separations of all existing 

at-grade crossings in order to comply with FRA high-speed rail corridor guidelines for 

grade-crossing safety. In addition, extensive reduction of curvature would be required in 

order to obtain speeds in excess of 110 mph over most of the route. Passenger train 

maximum speeds below 79 mph would not generate optimum ridership and would be 

comparable to automobile travel times. 

Service options were compared based on estimated travel times, ridership, revenue, and 

general operation and maintenance costs. The primary criteria used to screen the service 

options were the ridership and revenue forecasts because they are indicative of 

competitiveness with other modes of transportation. Average Chicago to Omaha travel time 

varies between speed regimes but does not vary substantially for the service options 

considered within each speed regime. As anticipated, the 110 mph design speed resulted in 

the quickest trips and the highest estimated ridership. Iowa DOT selected the optimum 

service option (described in the following paragraph) for full implementation, and eliminated 

other considered options for full implementation (such as different combinations of speeds 

and station stops) that did not have adequate ridership and revenue, and did not have 

sufficient station stops. Although all service options considered were feasible, the eliminated 

options for full implementation were not reasonable and did not fully meet the purpose and 

need for the Project to the extent of the optimum service option. The selection of a service 

option for study was based on service development planning and did not consider 

environmental impacts. As presented in Section 2.2.2.6, a phased implementation of the 

optimum service option is advisable given anticipated funding availability. The optimum

service option would be implemented in various phases.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-25 May 2013

Operations under the Build Alternative would ultimately include a combination of standardstop and selected-stop service. Selected-stop station stops would be Chicago Union Station, 

Naperville, Princeton, and Moline, Illinois; Iowa City, Des Moines, and Council Bluffs, 

Iowa; and Omaha, Nebraska. Standard-stop service would include the selected-stop locations 

as well as station stops at La Grange Road, Plano, Mendota, and Geneseo, Illinois, and 

Grinnell and Atlantic, Iowa. Figure 2-7 shows the locations of all station stops. There would 

be up to seven round-trip passenger trains per day travelling between Chicago and Des 

Moines, with five of these round-trips continuing to Omaha. The passenger trains would 

travel at speeds of up to 110 mph, with travel time averaging under 7 hours from Chicago to 

Omaha and under 5 hours from Chicago to Des Moines. These travel times are competitive 

with the personal automobile. 

2.2.3.7 Phased Implementation

Based on experience with other passenger rail projects, and on service development planning 

for this Project, FRA and Iowa DOT anticipate that the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Project would be incrementally funded and that construction and operations would be 

implemented in phases. The specific phasing of the Project is not known at this time but 

would be determined as funding is allocated to the Project.

The Project is anticipated to expand from the baseline of two round-trips per day from 

Chicago to Moline at a maximum speed of 79 mph (included in the Quad Cities Expansion 

Program passenger rail project) and service extended to Iowa City (included in the Chicago 

to Iowa City project). The Project would then be extended westward sequentially from Iowa 

City, to Des Moines, to Council Bluffs, and then to Omaha. At a maximum speed of 79 mph, 

average travel times between Chicago and Omaha would be approximately 8 hours, and 

between Chicago and Des Moines would be approximately 6 hours.

The speed and the frequency of round-trips would increase with subsequent implementation 

phases up to a maximum of 110 mph and up to seven round-trips per day from Chicago to 

Des Moines, with five of the round-trips extending from Chicago to Omaha. Full

implementation would be realized over many years of phased implementation as federal and 

state funds are allocated to the Project. Section 5.6 provides additional background on the 

phased implementation of logical sections or phases of the Project, which would be 

developed through separate but related projects. The Tier 2 NEPA process would address 

phased implementation in detail as successive projects are proposed.
!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

Des Moines River

La Grange

Road

Mendota

Princeton

Geneseo

!!

Naperville

Grinnell

Atlantic

Lake

Michigan

Omaha

Plano

Moline

Iowa

Des City

Moines

Council

Bluffs

Chicago

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦72

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦57

I A

I L

I N

M N

N E

W I

Wisconsin River

St. Clair River

Illinois River

Missouri River

Mississippi R iver

DATE

FIGURE

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Station Stops

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013

2-7

0

I

20 40

Miles

Amtrak's California

Zephyr Route

! Station Stop - - Selected Stop and Standard Stop Build Alternative

!! Station Stop - - Standard Stop Only
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-27 May 2013

Between publication of the Tier 1 Draft EIS and this Tier 1 Final EIS, Iowa DOT conducted 

service development planning for the Project and drafted a Service Development Plan (SDP). 

The SDP is a planning document that addresses the rationale for and details of the proposed 

passenger rail service, including a plan for phased implementation of the service, an 

operating plan for each phase of service, and a capital and financial plan for determining the 

types and amounts of funding needed for each phase of service. The SDP has an approximate

20-year planning horizon, but under phased implementation, full implementation of the 

Project would extend beyond 20 years. Therefore, Iowa DOT, in coordination with FRA, 

decided to focus the SDP on the interim implementation phase, which is the phase of the 

Project that would be implemented within this 20-year planning horizon. The interim 

implementation phase would likely include four round-trips per day at 79 mph between 

Chicago and Council Bluffs, while full implementation would be five to seven round-trips 

per day at 110 mph between Chicago and Omaha. Consequently, although the Tier 1 Draft 

EIS evaluated potential impacts of full implementation of the Project, FRA decided that the 

Tier 1 Final EIS would also include an analysis of the potential impacts of the interim 

implementation phase. Section 3.28 has been added to this Final EIS for assessing these 

potential impacts in a qualitative manner. Service development planning for the later phases 

leading up to full implementation would be completed in coordination with the Tier 2 NEPA

analyses for those phases.

Based on service development planning, the interim implementation phase would likely 

require additional ROW acquisition only in particular areas. Most of the improvements 

could be constructed within existing ROW. ROW acquisition is anticipated at the following 

locations, listed from east to west within the Corridor: 

• West of Wyanet at the Wyanet Connection

• Geneseo Station

• Colona Junction

• Moline second main track

• Moline Station

• Moline Layover Facility

• Davenport second main track

• Iowa City second main track

• Iowa City Station

• Coralville Layover Facility

• East of Marengo at the bypass of IAIS Homestead Yard

• Grinnell Station

• Des Moines bypass of UPRR Short Line Yard 

• Des Moines second main track

• Des Moines Layover Facility

• Des Moines Station

• Atlantic Station

• Council Bluffs new track

• Council Bluffs Station

• Council Bluffs Layover Facility
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2-28 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The largest needs for ROW for service through the interim implementation phase occur at the 

Wyanet Connection and in Des Moines. ROW needed for the Wyanet Connection is likely to 

be greater than for the improvements in Des Moines, but the improvements in Des Moines 

would be more complicated to design and construct because of the dense, urban environment. 

Based on the SDP, Grinnell Station, Atlantic Station, and Council Bluffs facilities would not 

be needed or developed until after service to Des Moines has been established. 

As discussed above, detailed quantitative impacts based on preliminary design and refined 

construction footprints would be identified and evaluated during Tier 2 analyses. Avoidance 

and minimization of impacts would be implemented during Tier 2; mitigation for impacts 

that could not be avoided would be coordinated with resource agencies, and necessary 

permits would be acquired before construction occurred. 

2.2.3.8 Current Passenger Service

Based on initial coordination and for the purposes of the Tier 1 NEPA process, it is assumed 

that Amtrak and the State of Illinois would continue their respective passenger services in 

conjunction with the proposed Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha service. Similarly, other 

forms of long-distance and regional transportation such as airplane and bus services are 

assumed to continue operating in and between the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs

metropolitan areas in the same manner as current operations. Further interaction between the 

States of Iowa and Illinois, and coordination with Amtrak would occur for the continuation 

of the service of through ticketing and Amtrak ticket marketing and point-of-sale system. 

The aforementioned system is common to all Amtrak long-distance and state-supported, 

Amtrak-operated regional trains, as well as many commuter trains and bus services.

2.2.4 Preferred Alternative

In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 1502.14, FRA has identified a preferred 

alternative for this Project: the Build Alternative, Route Alternative 4-A. The Build 

Alternative is preferred because it meets the purpose and need for the Project, giving the 

public a viable option for efficient transportation between Chicago and the Omaha/Council 

Bluffs metropolitan area, and points near and between those Project termini.

2.3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Table 2-4 summarizes the potential impacts of the No-Build Alternative and full

implementation of the Build Alternative based on the detailed analysis documented in 

Chapter 3 of this Tier 1 EIS. The potential impacts reported in Table 2-4 are based on 

construction occurring within the entire Potential Impact Area. For analysis in this Tier 1 

EIS, the area along all alignment options under consideration was evaluated as if it would be 

impacted, and the Potential Impact Area also includes a buffer to account for future 

flexibility in design to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Consequently, the potential 

impacts predicted to be caused by construction are overestimated. For example, although 

104,150 linear feet of streams are present within the Potential Impact Area, many feet of 

streams would be undisturbed where no new bridges or widening of existing bridges would 

be required. Specific resource impacts, such as whether there would be an adverse effect 

under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, a use of property under 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 2, Alternatives

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 2-29 May 2013

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, or an adverse effect under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, would be determined during Tier 2 analyses.

Table 2-4. Summary of Impacts

Resource Topic No-Build Alternative Build Alternative

Transportation Increased traffic congestion on 

highway system

Competitive transportation alternative; 

reduced freight traffic interference; 

safety improvements; changes in travel 

patterns where unsafe at-grade 

crossings are closed; temporary 

construction impacts (delays, detours)

Land Use, Zoning, and 

Property Acquisitions

Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

Impacts on land use, primarily on 

industrial and farmland

Agricultural Resources Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

3,190 acres prime farmland; 840 acres 

statewide important farmland

Socioeconomic 

Environment

Minor improvements to 

socioeconomic conditions (Chicago 

to Quad Cities only)

Economic benefits provided through 

job creation, joint development, 

improved accessibility, and increased 

economic activity (Chicago to Omaha)

Title VI and 

Environmental Justice

No disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts

Beneficial economic and mobility 

impacts; potential impacts on 

Environmental Justice population area 

in Des Moines

Elderly and People with 

Disabilities

New accessible service between 

Chicago and Quad Cities

New accessible service between 

Chicago and Omaha

Public Health and Safety

Improvements to at-grade crossings

and signals (Chicago to Quad 

Cities)

Improvements to at-grade crossings

and signals (Chicago to Omaha)

Noise and Vibration Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

1.7 new noise impacts per mile;

7.0 new vibration impacts per mile

Air Quality Increase in pollutant emissions over 

time due to fewer modal shifts

Decrease of most pollutant emissions

due to increased modal shifts

Hazardous Waste and 

Waste Disposal

Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

Minor impacts on 3 Superfund (NPL)

sites, 34 leaking underground storage 

tanks, 27 Non-National Priorities List

sites, and 1 wastewater treatment 

facility site

Cultural Resources No Project impacts

60 historic resources (37 buildings, 

1 structure, 3 bridges, and 19 historic 

districts)

Parks and Federally or 

State-Listed Natural Areas No Project impacts 44 parks, 24 recreation areas, and 22 natural areas

Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Properties No Project impacts

44 public parks, 21 public recreation 

areas, 8 public refuges, and 60 historic 

properties

Visual Resources and 

Aesthetic Quality

Minor impacts on sensitive 

receptors

Impacts on visual resources (parks, 

natural areas, riparian corridors) and 

sensitive receptors in Des Moines

Waterways and Water 

Bodies Minor impacts

Streams: 104,150 linear feet

Lakes: 32 acres

Ponds: 33 acres 
Chapter 2, Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2-30 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Resource Topic No-Build Alternative Build Alternative

Wetlands Minor impacts

238 acres (1 acre aquatic bed, 84 acres 

emergent, 33 acres scrub-shrub, and 

120 acres forested)

Water Quality Minor potential impacts

24 streams on 303(d) list of impaired 

water bodies; more impacts than 

No-Build Alternative

Floodplains Minor impacts 1,657 acres

Topography, Geology, and 

Soils Minor impacts

More impacts than No-Build 

Alternative, but minor impacts on 

Loess Hills

Natural Habitats and 

Wildlife Minor impacts

178 acres of natural terrestrial habitat;

aquatic habitat impacts; potential 

impacts from train/animal collisions;

potential stormwater runoff pollution

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Suitable habitat for federally and 

state-listed species

Suitable habitat for federally and statelisted species with potential for impact 

from constructing a new Missouri 

River crossing

Energy Use and Climate 

Change

Increase in energy consumption and 

greenhouse gas emissions due to 

fewer modal shifts

Long-term decrease in energy

consumption and greenhouse gas

emissions due to increased modal shifts

Construction Impacts Minor, temporary impacts 

Substantially more impacts than 

No-Build Alternative, but temporary in 

nature

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable Commitments

of Resources

Minor commitments of land, 

construction materials, financial 

resources, and energy consumption 

by automobiles

Substantial commitments of land, 

construction materials, financial 

resources, and energy consumption

Short-Term Use versus 

Long-Term Productivity

Short-term construction impacts of 

other projects, including benefit of 

construction employment; minimal 

reduction in long-term productivity 

of natural resources; and 

improvement in transportation 

network

Short-term construction impacts

(including benefit of construction 

employment) and reduction in air 

pollutant emissions and long-term

productivity of natural resources 

beyond that of the No-Build

Alternative; improved long-term 

socioeconomic productivity through 

transportation network enhancement

Indirect and Cumulative 

Impacts

Increase in vehicular traffic

congestion and decrease in air 

quality and energy

Reduced traffic congestion and vehicle 

emissions; reduced ridership of other 

transportation modes; improved air 

quality and safety; indirect impacts on 

parks, natural areas, and wildlife;

increased chance of hazardous material

incidents and water pollution; transitoriented development near stations

Note: All potential impacts shown are preliminary and have been evaluated at a Tier 1 level of analysis. 

Impacts will be reviewed and revised as necessary within future Tier 2 NEPA documents.